The Instigator
WillRiley
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
inaudita
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Have Christians been a hindrance to progress over time?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
inaudita
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,093 times Debate No: 56595
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

WillRiley

Con

Ok, so this first bit is just for you to see and accept. Anyways, I hope this can be a productive and civil debate.
Round One: Acceptance
Round Two: Opening Arguments
Round Three: Rebuttal
Round Four: Final Arguments
inaudita

Pro

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WillRiley

Con

Over time, especially in Europe, most, if not all, great scientific and artistic minds have been Christians.
inaudita

Pro

Christianity itself has been a hinderance to science, as it has punished individuals such as Galileo simply because they had contradictory ideas to the church. Also, institutions such as the inquisitions of many european countries have caused the death of many scientists, mainly due to heresy, also known as not agreeing with the church.
Debate Round No. 2
WillRiley

Con

I am glad that you brought up Galileo because if you didn't I would have my self. Galileo, while he was persecuted by the Catholic Church, was a very devout Christian. The vast majority, if not all, of the Artistic and Scientific minds of the Renaissance were Christians. Also, many Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke as well as Tomas Hobbes were Christians. After the fall of Rome, most hospitals, schools, and other charitable facilities were gone. However, throughout the Middle Ages, these were carried on by none other than Christian monks. These monasteries helped the sick and injured, as well as taught many poor people to read and write.
inaudita

Pro

It matters not whether the individuals that created things beneficial to humanity are Christians, it only matters that the institution of the church itself hurt the development of humanity. How many great individuals would their have been without the Church or the inquisition being in place to remove "Heretics"?
Debate Round No. 3
WillRiley

Con

Well, see you have tried to point out a flaw in my argument, but if you were to read the title of the debate, you would realize that I am talking about Christians,(Christians being people who follow Christ's teachings, not just the established Church) not the Catholic Church. However, I will humor you by saying that even the Catholic Church has helped progress. (I do not deny that it has also hindered it) After the fall of Rome and throughout the Middle Ages, the majority of people were illiterate. During the middle ages, the schools, orphanages, hospitals, universities, charities, and many other beneficial services to the people, free of charge I might add. Also, I would like you to look at this list of Christians, I believe that you will recognize some of the names.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Mother Teresa
Leonardo Da Venci
George Washington
Tomas Jefferson
Nelson Mandela
Nicolaus Copernicus
Galileo Galilei
John Locke
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus
Michelangelo
Tomas Edison
Christopher Columbus
Issac Newton
Every US president
Vast Majority of UK prime ministers
This list could go on forever, but I will spare you of reading a huge list.
as well as these scientific thinkers-
http://en.wikipedia.org...
inaudita

Pro

In fact some Christians have hindered progress over time. It is a fact that Christians lead the inquisitions and it is Christians that caused the middle ages. It is Christians that relied on seeking paradise in death in the middle ages that prevented the seeking of paradise in life. By far the majority of Christians were these peasant individuals. Their are also plenty of Christians that have committed acts of terrorism, justified by the bible itself.[1] By far most Christians have hindered hindered progress in some way over time, even though some may have caused human development to progress. Considering the fact that we are speaking of individuals that were Christian in general, we can also come across people that have further hindered humanity that are Christians no matter what sect it may be, such as:
Adolf Hitler
Heinrich Himmler
Joseph Goebbels
Vlad the Impaler
Jim Jones
Ted Bundy
Ivan the Terrible
Jeffrey Dahmer[2]
Adolf Eichman
and many more.
The hindrance greatly outweighs the benefit Christian individuals have had on humanity.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.adherents.com...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Hitler's use of the Evolution techniques was nothing to do with being an Atheist.
He had developed a dislike for other Christian sects that opposed his treatment of the Jews, thus his apparently anti Christian comments.
He knew that Science had nothing to do with religion and simply saw the genetic traits concepts as a means for building his Master Race of like minded, extremely intelligent race/army.
He considered that this is what God had envisioned for him to achieve.
He was to be the Messiah of a supreme race of humans.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: Hitler was definitely a Theist, not an Atheist by any means.
He started as a Catholic and believed he was doing the Catholic church a service by extinguishing the Jews, as Catholics had been persecuting Jews for 1500 years prior to Hitler.
Hitler even told the Catholic leaders this as he questioned why they were not backing his doing their dirty work for them. Because he also considered that the Jews murdered Jesus and believed that the Catholics would support his getting rid of them.
When the Catholic church rejected his efforts, he started his own religion, believing he was right and God would support him and not the Catholic church.
After he survived the bunker bomb, he was convinced that God saved him for a special purpose.
This drove him further into his delusion of Grandeur, as God's appointed Messiah.
He even vowed to rid Germany of Atheists, as he saw Atheism as an enemy to his regime.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Charles Darwin almost held back his concepts due to his Christian beliefs, but decided to put Science ahead of his religion.
Thus Christianity almost prevented his publishing of his works on Evolution.
Proving that Christianity hinders the scientific work of Christian scientists.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Many Christian scientists hid their ideas from their religious peers for fear of persecution.
Likely Leonardo da Vinci could have been the father of evolution instead of Darwin, had he not kept much of his ideas concerning fossils in layers private.
Though he did question the Old Testament flood and considered it nonsense, because if the flood had occurred then the fossils would not be in specific layers as Leonardo realized that the Earth was far older than the Bible indicated.
He essentially called those who adhere to the Old Testament stories as stupid.
Though had he gone further with his comments, likely history would have Leonardo (a Christian, as was Giordano Bruno) Executed for his comments. Christianity in those times had no such thing as Freedom of Speech.
Posted by inaudita 3 years ago
inaudita
I hope i win this after the last debate was bomb voted by an idiot.
Posted by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
@JackFritschy (voter)

How was Nazism atheistic? Hitler seemed to despise Christianity but he still constantly expressed belief in an almighty creator. Anti-Christian or Anti-religion is not atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of a belief in god(s) and clearly Hitler was not atheist since he believed in a god. People try to lump him in with atheism for convenience sake, but that is outright false.

Claiming that Hitler was a Christian while he was running Germany is false, but claiming he was an atheist is equally untrue.
Posted by inaudita 3 years ago
inaudita
He had syncetic christian views and you know it.
Posted by WillRiley 3 years ago
WillRiley
I would think some one like you would know that the Nazis, while many were probably Christians, as it was Europe, which the majority was Christian, Hitler was anything but. Maybe he did believe in the Christian God, but it is certain that he had Pagan beliefs. Christianity said that God is the only God. No Nazi beliefs are expressed in the bible, and you should know this. Jesus himself was a Jew, and just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are. Also, I would like to know how Christians caused the middle ages?
Posted by inaudita 3 years ago
inaudita
Contrary to popular belief Nazis were generally Christian and used Christian practices.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly demonstrated that Christianity hindered scientific progress, since he mentioned the Inquisition which was a large scale attempt to rid the world of scientific (non-Christian) literature, which the Islamic people saved the day for, but much was lost. Galileo's fight was also a great example of Christianity trying to stifle science. He could have gone further which such as Bruno ( a devout Christian Monk) who was executed for his concepts of the universe differing from Christian teachings. I think Pro's was a stronger case than Con, just citing Christians who could have done more if they were not Christian, as there are many examples of Christians holding back ideas so as to not upset their religion, Darwin almost did that. Had he put his religious values first, he would not be the father of Evolution.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know which way to vote. Was a vague resolution, as Christians could mean both the individuals or the group collectively. If we are talking about the collective group then Pro's arguments would have been relevant and he would have clearly won. If the reverse is the case then, probably Con's debate. Make a clearer resolution next time.
Vote Placed by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is an easy vote. The topic was "Have Christians been a hindrance to progress over time?" And pro put out an argument that they have. Con's only argument is that there were good Christians too, which is irrelevant. The argument was if they did, and they did. It does not mater if Christians also worked towards progress, they held it back as well.
Vote Placed by neutral 3 years ago
neutral
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argument is the rejection of institutional gains, which were clearly spelled out, and the what amounts to cherry picking individuals. Any case that Christianity was actually counter-produtive in the aggregate ... well, it wasn't actually made. Just that some bad things happen (net positive of negative?) and that there were some bad Christians. You can unfortunately do that with anything that has been around 2,000 years. The net negative was not produced, while the net probative in the middle ages was made by Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to change the resolution.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides should put more effort in their arguments, and really take a hard look at their premises. Also take a hard look at your opponents premises and try to undermine them. I'm awarding the argument a tie.
Vote Placed by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does nothing to address the topic at hand, that Christians have hindered progress. Con basically just lists scientists who were Christian, as if that is proof that Christianity did not hinder progress. I gave sources to Pro as well as arguments, because Cons only source was a list of Christian scientists, which is irrelevant to the topic. Pro provided examples of how Christianity has hindered progress (though he could have done a much better job of it) and Pro's sources are actually relevant to the topic at hand. Overall this was a very poor debate.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 3 years ago
JackFritschy
WillRileyinauditaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con made better arguments. Pro was untruthful by listing nazis as Christians. Nazism was almost entirely atheistic